"Very well.
In your reports, you suspected there had been some kind of collusion between Malik Davidson, Terrance Johnson and your three attacking gunmen. Can you please express to the court why you believed this to be so?"
(( @Swanker @JameZ ))

"Indeed a long career of service. Trooper Richards, on the first of January, in your pursuit of the vehicle driven by Terrance Johnson, what actions were taken which you felt constituted evasion?"
(( @Swanker please tag me in your responses ))

"Your Honor,
Before the Defense drags this case further down a rabbit hole, the Prosecution would like to examine the apparent arguments that have been presented against the guilt of Elizabeth Woods. Earlier statements by the Defense insinuated that her apparent 'limited training' played a factor, and alleged that unintentional errors lead to her failure to register a firearm.
Ignorantia juris non excusat is perhaps one of the most basic, and routinely held principles in criminal law. As our Third President, Thomas Jefferson, nobly stated, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended.”
These beliefs have directly resulted in jurisprudence within the United States Supreme Court... As far back as 1833, the Supreme Court in the United States v. Barlow held that:
"It presents the broader question whether a mistake of law will excuse a forfeiture in cases of this description. We think it will not. The whole course of the jurisprudence, criminal as well as civil, of the common law points to a different conclusion. It is a common maxim familiar to all minds that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally, and it results from the extreme difficulty of ascertaining what is bona fide the interpretation of the party, and the extreme danger of allowing such excuses to be set up for illegal acts, to the detriment of the public."
Fast forward to 2010 and in the Supreme Court held still, in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, "that mistake or ignorance of law is no defense."
Furthermore even in cases where the Supreme Court did rule in favor of this defense such as Lambert v. California, it was under the context that, "Where a person did not know of the duty to register (as a felon) and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistent with due process.” However that 'test' is easily defeated here as it would be wholly improbable, and reckless of this court to assume, that in all her time as a citizen of Los Santos, as a Law Enforcement Officer, specifically as a member of the Firearms Licensing Bureau, that Elizabeth Woods would never have examined the governing laws and acts related to her work as an officer, or related to her weapons licensing.
To support this, the Prosecution would submit new evidence, to be marked as Exhibit 12:
As the Court can now see, on November 15th, 2016, Elizabeth Woods, acting as a 'Filing Agent' within the Firearms Licensing Bureau was actively reviewing Qualification and Assessment Exams. It is safe to assume therefore, that she was qualified to do so, and understood what constituted correct answers as defined by the applicable firearms laws, governing the State of San Andreas. Unless the Defense is prepared to Subpoena Nathan Daniels, the now house-mate of Elizabeth Woods, and potentially expose gross incompetency on his behalf, and then prove it to be so brutal that he would have fully prevented his subordinates from doing their due diligence in study of the law, then the Prosecution is satisfied that these claims of ignorance, are merely red herrings, and nothing more.
To close, the Prosecution would like to sample a quote from the University of Chicago Law Review,1944 publication of Mistake of Law And Mens Rea:
"If the defense is to be based upon an excuse personal to the defendant, there must be clear, objective evidence that the defendant did not know his conduct was forbidden by the law, and his excuse for this lack of knowledge must be one which objectively negatives any possible fault on his part...."
Your Honor, short of presenting evidence that Miss Woods is illiterate or suffering from kind of mental handicap, the Prosecution feels there is absolutely no substantial arguments that may be presented that would free her from the liabilities stemming from the willful commission of felonious crimes."
(( @Mogs @EvilScotsman @Antonia ))

"The Prosecution maintains that it is not relevant to the facts of Miss Wood's felonous crimes, or action resulting therefore.
Can the Defense clearly articulate how it is relevant?
Miss Woods firearm registry is listed under Exhibit 5."
(( @Mogs @EvilScotsman ))

"Your Honor,
The Prosecution wishes the suppress the Deposition Hearing of Miss Woods under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 "Test for Relevant Evidence" which states:
"Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Your Honor, Miss Wood's statements in Deposition about her apparent lack of training, do not make the fact that she entered a building of the Superior Court of San Andreas, unlawfully possessing a firearm any more or less probable. Furthermore, there is no reasonable exemption regarding ignorance to publicly accessible law, and therefore has no consequence on determining guilt."
(( @Mogs @EvilScotsman @Antonia ))

"Your Honor, the Prosecution challenges the relevancy of the Subpoenaed documents and objects to the motion.
What does argument could the Defense possibly me making? They have already admitted that Elizabeth Woods committed felonious acts!"
(( @EvilScotsman @Mogs ))

"Your Honor, this is ridiculous... The Defense's attorney is clearly so delusional that they are unable to decipher that a state-level court building WITHIN THE UNITED STATES is not a court OF THE UNITED STATES.
Additionally Your Honor, this attorney is attempting to imply that there is some kind of liability that law enforcement has to prevent or preeminently act on crimes that have already been committed... a complete fallacy.
Furthermore Your Honor, the Defense has yet to submit any kind of substantiating evidence to affirm their claims of Miss Woods having purchased two weapons in January of 2018.. Or is it 2017? The Defense is unsure it seems. Perhaps some proof of purchase would serve this court better than a Subpoena for documents that have already been handed over to the courts in previous exhibits.
The Prosecution would also draw Your Honor's attention to the claims of the Defense, that Miss Woods received minimal training. Does this extend elsewhere? If she's received minimal training as a Law Enforcement Officer, should her status as a qualified retried one not be revoked? Would she claim that her minimal training as a driver disqualifies her from liability on the roads? Perhaps this should be examined and her automotive license be revoked as well.
As you can see Your Honor, these lines of argument are comic at best, and the Prosecution is truly concerned that this attorney maintains BAR accreditation if simple, innate facts fall beyond their grasp of comprehension."
(( @EvilScotsman @Mogs @Antonia ))